Talk:Complementary good/Archives/2013

"Complement good" is not standard terminology
I deleted "or complement good" in the first sentence of the article because "complementary good" is the standard terminology for this concept in economics, not "complement good." I've never seen a major textbook on microeconomics use the latter term. (As a college econ instructor, I've taught this course dozens of times, using more than a dozen different texts over the years. In addition, in the process of selecting which texts to assign in my classes, I've reviewed literally even more dozens of textbooks altogether.)

The reason why the standard term is "complementary good" and not "complement good" is rooted in (American) grammar. "Complement" is used as both a noun (as in, "this wine is an excellent complement to spicy foods") and a verb ("this wine complements spicy foods well"), but not as an adjective. "Complementary" is its adjectival form, so that's the form that must be used to modify "good."

Because "complement" is a noun, the standard terms "perfect complement(s)" and "imperfect complement(s)" are grammatically correct, of course.

It may initially seem inconsistent, then, that "substitute good" is the standard term for that concept. But a moment's reflection reveals that "substitute good" is, in fact, grammatically correct, because "substitute" can be used as a noun ("salt is usually not a good substitute for sugar"), a verb "you shouldn't usually substitute salt for sugar", and an adjective ("salt isn't usually a used as a substitute condiment for sugar"). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackftwist (talk • contribs) 16:29, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I gotta say, complement good sounds about as iffy as substitute good - both seem lazy. In the case of the former, should the complementary good not seem appropriate for whatever reason I'd sooner use the complementing good or the complemented good instead. Likewise for the latter; the substituted good (the sugar), the substituting good (the salt) or the the substitutionary good (the tea itself) might be more appealing. In any case, I'm pretty sure that complement is a noun also and therefore, regardless of its usage within economics or indeed lack thereof, there should be absolutely no reason why the complement good ought be deemed as unacceptable. I mean, if we're talking about an examination and students being pulled-up on this technicality, I think it would be exceptionally harsh.


 * Mere Mortal (talk) 22:07, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

/* Examples */ Car and fuel REMOVED
The petrol industry is precisely that...an industry in its very own right. Thus, it is NOT a complementary good at all. Yes, a car requires fuel but because that product is one of the most important industries on the face of this planet, it simply cannot be described as complementing one specific industry. I'd actually go so far as suggesting, to the contrary, that the CAR is the complementary good of FUEL.

It's like saying oven and bread; that would be so very wrong. Why? Because the grass which forms that bread is a staple food and therefore an integral industry in its very own right. By all means, so is the oven, but you just wouldn't have the oven without the grass. The two are so important independently in the industrialised world that they simply cannot be described as complementing the other. Again I would suppose that the OVEN in this case is the complement of WHEAT, if that could even apply in the first place.


 * Mere Mortal (talk) 16:57, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

/* Examples */ Shoes entry MODIFIED
Nonsense, utter nonsense. Unless somebody has two left feet, and I appreciate that Andy Carroll is a prime example here, a shoe is simply not sold alone as a particular footing. Exceptions might arise when tailoring an irregular individual, such as, but that goes beyond the scope of the general terminology. The way I see this is that the two together comprise one good and, as such, cannot possibly be a valid example. Boot & Lace? Yes, that would work. In fact, I'll instead modify to that effect as opposed to removing this entry in its entirety.

Further, if somebody lost one shoe then they're hardly going to go out and buy that foot to replace it, rather they will buy a new PAIR. If a particular shoe for one foot is being produced independently to that of the other foot, then such would surely be an entirely different industry to that of typical footwear. If this were the case then the two are utterly separate goods and therefore could not possibly complement one another at all. When we're talking about a standard industry then, well, standards apply and the standard in this case is that by far the most people on this planet have one right foot and one left, and thus we buy our shoes together as one good. Except for Andy Carroll, but that's another story.


 * Mere Mortal (talk) 16:57, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

/* Examples */ Torchlight and battery MODIFIED
I'm really unsure of torch and battery here, too. As above, the torch is actually a complement of the battery in the way that I see it. "Torchlight" also sounds wrong, that's like referring to the motion of the CAR. Granted, the light is the intended product, but so is the motion of the vehicle. Without motion, a supposed vehicle is simply not a vehicle at all. The same applies to the torch and its light as the two individual goods come together to form the desired product; light. Now, historically-speaking this is probably a perfect example, but now that we're into the wondrous ages, we don't even need a standard battery. Okay, maybe it is a battery still, even in the case of a wind-up toy, but surely here the source of the fuel is totally integral to the original good in such a way that it cannot be deemed as a separate industry. In any case, I see this entry as valid whilst referring to the torch itself, but not the resulting light which it produces. I still think there's the issue of fuel, as described already, but I think that it's beyond my level of competence really to be further definitive in the matter.


 * Mere Mortal (talk) 17:26, 20 March 2013 (UTC)